There has been a lot of debate as of late whether or not video games should be considered a form of art. Roger Ebert brought this dead horse out of its grave once more last week in order to give it yet another good beating. My opinion on the matter - which matters about as little as Ebert's - is that games are indeed art. What else can you call something that the very parts of it are assembled from other forms of art. The code that is used to make games is the glue that holds together that art. Games are the interactive realization of an idea; inspiration born to the form of an interactive plaything. The idea that just because something is interactive that it can't be art is asinine. I would argue that the best art is the art that engages us in a mental and/or emotional way. 
 
Again, this is all based on my obviously bias opinion as a person that has played video games since the mid 1980s. But this is my blog and I can be bias every once and a while if I so choose. This whole debate is a bit useless, really. The thing that spurred this particular instance of the "Games Are/Aren't Art" debate is just as hollow. Roger Ebert is simply attempting to find a foothold in an arena where he has no place. Time and technology are moving on and as we grow older somewhere along the way some of us simply stop moving at all. The-thing-that-you-like-isn't-art-argument is as old as art itself.  Sculpting, painting, music, movies, comics; each of these things have been argued over in the past as to their artistic merits. One day when the younger generations grow older, video games may just be called the newest form of art. Of course I'm sure there will be something else to come along for us to ridicule as an art form when we grow old.